darell1976 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Al Carlson wants to lower the oil extraction tax because ND has too much money...that's right too MUCH money. http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUPLAYER_kfgoweb&v=6_LJgyoXQmg&feature=player_embedded#! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Al Carlson wants to lower the oil extraction tax because ND has too much money...that's right too MUCH money. #! He is taking over where Scott Hennen and Ed Schafer left off to do Hamm's bidding for him. I said Hamm's so-called gift was going to come back and haunt the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I guess my thought is "get it while the gettin's good", you never know if they'll slow down fracking or something else will happen down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 He is taking over where Scott Hennen and Ed Schafer left off to do Hamm's bidding for him. I said Hamm's so-called gift was going to come back and haunt the state. I think Al Carlson's term in politics are about over. Especially if he runs for major office this will be played all over the airwaves. It doesn't matter what party you are from this is just stupid. Give money from the state back to the oil companies? Did the NCAA give him a tumor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I think Al Carlson's term in politics are about over. Especially if he runs for major office this will be played all over the airwaves. It doesn't matter what party you are from this is just stupid. Give money from the state back to the oil companies? Did the NCAA give him a tumor? And the major benefactor will be Hamm. HHMMM why is he building that building? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb1 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Wow just Wow! I can't believe someone would actually go on air and say what clueless Al just did. It should be his duty to try and get as much money in†o our coffers as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I guess my thought is "get it while the gettin's good", you never know if they'll slow down fracking or something else will happen down the road. Agree. Some "experts" are already suggesting that the easy oil has already been extracted in some areas of the Bakken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 In other news, the leaders in 49 states want to bitch slap Al Carlson right now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg2009 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 what a colossal idiot. If anything, we should be upping fees to put the brakes on the boom a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FargoBison Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Al's oil company handout bill passes through the senate.... http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/senate-oks-bill-restructuring-oil-tax/article_fdee51d4-8065-11e2-992a-001a4bcf887a.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Al's oil company handout bill passes through the senate.... http://bismarcktribu...1a4bcf887a.html Anyone think Dalrymple has the grapefruits to veto this piece of crap bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Al's oil company handout bill passes through the senate.... http://bismarcktribu...1a4bcf887a.html I guess the promise of a building worked. I remember how I was attacked when the building was announced. While all of you were signing praise to Hamm. Now what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Excellent news finding out about this bill and its passing. This will further make ND an excellent choice for doing oil related business. The taxes were too high and it was going to hurt the state long term. The state has plenty of revenue and should focus on reducing spending and leaving as much money as possible with the private sector, that is the people. It is not the state's job to soak up as munch money as possible, but rather it is the state's goal to provide the essentials as efficiently and cost effectively as possible so that the maximum amount of money can be left with the people who earned it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Excellent news finding out about this bill and its passing. This will further make ND an excellent choice for doing oil related business. The taxes were too high and it was going to hurt the state long term. The state has plenty of revenue and should focus on reducing spending and leaving as much money as possible with the private sector, that is the people. It is not the state's job to soak up as munch money as possible, but rather it is the state's goal to provide the essentials as efficiently and cost effectively as possible so that the maximum amount of money can be left with the people who earned it. Scott, Is that you? Do you really enjoy paying a larger percentage of your income in taxes than Hamm and the oil companies you are supporting? Furthermore, being the tax is higher here than elsewhere why do they then keep drilling? I Know I Know! That is where the oil is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 On McFeely: -Its not giving away our oil tax money to the oil companies. The oil companies made the money originally and its the oil companies' money. The state took it from the oil companies. The state is just going to take less of it with this bill. -Its not the state's job to decide how much money the oil companies make. -Carlson's argument is a good one. ND does have too much money. State spending has exploded over the last number of years and its wasteful spending. -Perhaps some oil companies will long term decide become ND oil companies. What difference does it make where the oil companies take the money. Right now most of the oil companies are investing a substantial amount of the money right here in ND. -There is lots of competition out there for ND. Its all over. -Its not giving it to the oil boys. Its letting them keep what they worked hard to earn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Scott, Is that you? Do you really enjoy paying a larger percentage of your income in taxes than Hamm and the oil companies you are supporting? Income taxes should be reduced as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FargoBison Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 This is fiscal insanity. If our legislators can't handle all the revenue we are making then it is time to elect new legislators. We are in a position to set our state up for decades, we shouldn't squander this opportunity because we won't get a second chance. There is only so much oil in the ground. Right now production is at record levels so obviously both the state and oil companies are doing well, the companies wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case. If we have so much revenue why not set up a higher education endowment, we could setup our universities for a long time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 On McFeely: -Its not giving away our oil tax money to the oil companies. The oil companies made the money originally and its the oil companies' money. The state took it from the oil companies. The state is just going to take less of it with this bill. -Its not the state's job to decide how much money the oil companies make. -Carlson's argument is a good one. ND does have too much money. State spending has exploded over the last number of years and its wasteful spending. -Perhaps some oil companies will long term decide become ND oil companies. What difference does it make where the oil companies take the money. Right now most of the oil companies are investing a substantial amount of the money right here in ND. -There is lots of competition out there for ND. Its all over. -Its not giving it to the oil boys. Its letting them keep what they worked hard to earn. Okay, then please explain to me how Alaska has higher oil taxes than we have and it hasn't hurt their economy at all. They have no income tax and each of their residents gets a royalty check from all the oil tax proceeds. Granted, they have fewer people and, thus, fewer needs to fund, but as long as there is oil in North Dakota, the oil companies are not going anywhere. I think North Dakota should pass a constitutional amendment to make it legal to pay out royalties to North Dakota residents. But I suppose you wouldn't like that, would you? As for "letting them keep what they worked hard to earn", how about all the negative impacts on the people that live here that have resulted from the oil boom? Should we just pay for it out of our tax dollars so that the oil executives can keep more of "what they worked hard to earn"? Apparently, you think so. I do not. And a lot of the oil money is NOT staying in North Dakota, it is going out of state to the families of the oil workers, many of whom are here because they can't find work at home. So please explain to me how that helps North Dakota? Based on your comments here, why don't we just lower the tax to ZERO and let them keep ALL of it, while we subsidize the expenses and the disruptions they are causing? In my book, that is pure corporate welfare, which this Legislature thinks is the solution to every problem. I personally consider it the fleecing of North Dakota. But to each their own. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 On McFeely: -Its not giving away our oil tax money to the oil companies. The oil companies made the money originally and its the oil companies' money. The state took it from the oil companies. The state is just going to take less of it with this bill. -Its not the state's job to decide how much money the oil companies make. -Carlson's argument is a good one. ND does have too much money. State spending has exploded over the last number of years and its wasteful spending. -Perhaps some oil companies will long term decide become ND oil companies. What difference does it make where the oil companies take the money. Right now most of the oil companies are investing a substantial amount of the money right here in ND. -There is lots of competition out there for ND. Its all over. -Its not giving it to the oil boys. Its letting them keep what they worked hard to earn. No state ever has "too much money". What they do with it is another matter. I remember in the past NoDak has had problems making its budget. NoDak would be wise to use its largess to diversify its economy. It's still an older population and still too dependent on agribusiness and energy. Oil strikes are temporary bumps. The companies' workers are largely transient and their employers' interests in the state only extend to their ability to extract oil at the lowest cost. Once the margins shrink, they'll start to leave. And no major oil company is going to move from Texas or Oklahoma to Dickinson or Bismarck. Carlson is a bumbling idiot who only cares about his own political "career". He probably deserves a recall election more than anybody in recent memory. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Income taxes should be reduced as well. I kind of remember the people of North Dakota voted that down overwhelmingly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 No state ever has "too much money". What they do with it is another matter. I remember in the past NoDak has had problems making its budget. NoDak would be wise to use its largess to diversify its economy. It's still an older population and still too dependent on agribusiness and energy. Oil strikes are temporary bumps. The companies' workers are largely transient and their employers' interests in the state only extend to their ability to extract oil at the lowest cost. Once the margins shrink, they'll start to leave. And no major oil company is going to move from Texas or Oklahoma to Dickinson or Bismarck. Carlson is a bumbling idiot who only cares about his own political "career". He probably deserves a recall election more than anybody in recent memory. ScottM, Still happy over the bribe from Hamm? What's his return going to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimos Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I kind of remember the people of North Dakota voted that down overwhelmingly. What vote was that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 What vote was that? There was an initiated measure in 2008 that would have cut corporate and individual income taxes. It was voted down big-time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I kind of remember the people of North Dakota voted that down overwhelmingly. Thanks to the inclusion of corporate tax rates and the need to reduce property taxes. I believe the people of the state felt if income taxes were axed then property taxes wouldn't be addressed. Now we are still paying income taxes and property taxes still haven't been truly reduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Thanks to the inclusion of corporate tax rates and the need to reduce property taxes. I believe the people of the state felt if income taxes were axed then property taxes wouldn't be addressed. Now we are still paying income taxes and property taxes still haven't been truly reduced. More it was people knew that if their income taxes went down their property taxes would go up. People did not like the idea of another regressive tax. The state property tax is miniscule. On one piece of my property the tax bill was $1,087.12 which a whole $4.00 went to the state. Property taxes are a local issue. Schools, parks, and county taxes are what your real property tax is all about. Now UNDBIZ do you agree with me that Hamm got what he wanted with his so-called "gift"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.